04-24-2017, 07:17 PM
(04-24-2017, 06:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I introduced the demographic of Muslims 0.9%. I did not introduced the percentage of Radical Muslim although I did use 10% to illustrate a point. But to make the point meaningful to you I will introduce the population of white folk 79.6% of the population. So without making any assumptions we have a portion of 0.9% of the population committing 27% of the acts and we have a portion of 79.8% of the population committing 73% of the acts. Which presents the bigger threat?
You keep interchanging "more likely to be attacked" with the "bigger threat". In America I am more likely to get killed by a deer than a bear; however, if I ever see a deer in one direction and a bear in the other; I'm not running toward the bear; because I understand the bear is the bigger threat.
To answer you question: I am more concerned about the population that is the bigger threat nd that is the population that makes up 0.9% of Americans; yet commit 27% of the acts. Despite you continued efforts: This does not make me or anyone else concern with these numbers a racist, bigot, ect... Just means that they have the ability to grasp the concept that analysis include more that just saying 5 is larger than 4.
So if we are concerned about domestic terror we are not supposed to be concerned about the group that is committing the most acts of terrorism?
And you are not more likely to get attacked by a deer than a bear. Most deer deaths are due to car accidents, not attacks. But thanks for showing your ability to "grasp the concepts". But since you brought it up let me ask you a question. Bear attacks are worse than bicycle wrecks, yet no one makes their kids wear bear-proof clothing when they go out to play while everyone makes their kid wear a bike helmet. Why is that? Why would parents be concerned about bicycle wrecks more than bear attacks when a bear attack is obviously much more deadly?
